disappointment that proposed grantees were not here to speak on their own behalf about the project that we are going to undertake as a result of our access. if they are not here, i don't know what good my saying this is going to do. but i do think it is a problem. and i don't know exactly what the solution is, but i would like to see one. >> and i would just say that that concern is heard and noted. and we can do also our part to be a little more forceful in our encouragement. that would be great. thank you. >> thank you. >> and are there any members of the public who wish to comment on this item?

>> are there, is there a motion by any of the commissioners? we have a short resolution before us. is there a motion? >> a motion to approve. >> okay. >> a second. >> thank you. >> and we have a motion and a second and please call the roll. >> commissioner gravanis? >> yes. >> commissioner stephenson. >> yes. >> commissioner wald. >> yes. >> commissioner wan. >> yes. >> a motion has been approved, the resolution has been approved. >> great, next item please? >>discussion and possible

action to make recommendations to the board of supervisors (bos) on bos file no. 141094 [environment code greenhouse gas information labels for gas pumps]: ordinance amending the environment code to require service station operators to place labels on gas pumps advising the public of the amount of carbon dioxide generated by burning a gallon of fuel and making environmental findings. >> and in your packet is a copy of the ordinance and the digest sponsored by the director, and speakers pollock and legislative aid to supervisor john avalos and a discussion and a possible action item and we do, and i do have a statement that our commission president joshua arce asked to be read and he is not able to be with you for the discussion but he did send a statement but that is supervisor avalos ordinance to acquire greenhouse gas information labeled for the gas pumps and a strong proposal that we can adopt for the efforts to increase the awareness at the realities of calling the change and move the needle on the greenhouse gas emission from the city and i hope that we can get the questions that we may about

this proposal answered tonight so that the commission in the environment can take action to support the proposal for a letter of support or supervisors. >> director? >> thank you. >> this item is before you at the specific request of supervisor avalos and his office. he is in the middle of a board of supervisor meeting and so he sent jeremy here, and this is a poe ten sal action item. so what that means is, we will be hearing presentations from jeremy pollock and also hear the comments from staff and it is a chance for you to have the questions answered. when we talked about this in the policy committee, there was a lot of questions that we didn't know the answers to, and so now we are grateful that jeremy is here to answer them as well as other speakers, if at the end of the discussion, it is really up to you, as to what action you would like to

take, it could simply be, forwarding the minutes of the discussion which is an indication of your questions and your input and it could be something more formal than that, so it is open in the way that it is in the agenda right now. >> with that i will open it up to jeremy. >> thank you, for the record, legislative aid to john avalos. and yes, the order before you is, it is up in sort of a novel approach to the climate change that we are excited to push forward and it is the idea of putting the information labels on the gas pumps to educate the people about how burning the gasoline and the fuel contributes to global warming and this was brought to us by the organization for the 350 bay area and, a number of whom are here and they actually have a present that they would like to make about the idea as well and they have also been working with the birthday city council who has approved a motion to have their city attorney draft an ordinance similar as this and we have been in a discussion with them to try to work in parallel to make sure

that sort of we thought that it would be easier to implement if it was across both sides of bay and the logistics and we say that we are definitely eager to hear your feedback on the ordinance and how to be sure that it is something that is meaningful or easy to administer and we put a lot of feedback that the language is too long and complicated and i think that we are looking at how we can shorten that to make it more concise and we will appreciate the feedback that you have on that and another concern that we have is how it will apply to the alternative fuel and whether it is electric or natural gas or bio diesel and etc., and yeah, i think that there is many different policy choices that could you go on that, and i think, that it is easy to go down a rabbit hole of looking at what the different emissions are from where you draw the emission food chain for all of these different fuel sources.

and i think that our inclination is that at least for the initial ordinance it will make sense to eliminate to gasoline and diesel and the bio diesel where you have the majority of the diesel and try not to get into the over, complicated for the cng and that sort of thing and we would be interested in your feedback on that. and, so, yeah, i guess that will keep your presentation short and i don't know if you would like to address questions or if you would like to hear from the folks at the 360 bay area or from the staff. >> commissioners? questions for mr. pollock? >> perhaps, we could hear the rest of the presentation and then... and questions. >> okay. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. >> and so jamie brooks, do you want to speak next?

>> hello commissioners. thank you for having us here, i am jamie brooks and i am from the 350 bay area. i am just technical approach. >> so i'm assuming that since jeremy used little of his allotted time that you can have more than three minutes. >> yes, if that is, if that is all right with you all too. it is, and from my experience it is better to lay it out so that you can get or kind of a foundation to work with. and so, just, from the first slide, obviously, the labels are not just you know, sort of a static individual working on the individual at the gas pump, it is actually, there is a label that is out into the public realm and so it gets into the social norms and behavior and social and cultural and component of using

fossil fuels in our society. so the idea is to kind of disrupt that and challenge those that notion, and where we are using our, where we are using our science as our guide and as most of you are going to appreciate that we need to reduce emissions, by a dramatic amount in our transportation system and others, this is a transportation approach. we are not dealing with global warming in general. so this is a primary, you know, basically, focus of this campaign, and we think that we should create this transparency at the pump for consumers. and that the dangers should be clear and outlined, and disclosed for consumers, the consumers know exactly what they are getting and these are some proposed concepts that are obviously not... and so this is sort of out of the norm that is, in our society.

and where we are arguing today, and at the moment, it is socially okay to use fossil fuels and this is a contradiction to science. and just briefly, about what or how social norms work and how behaviors are dictated by various types of, you know, what we look at, who we interact with, and what people do. and these start to have strong effects on how we are in our behavior. and essentially, unhindered or using fossil fuels and social is a predominant norm in our society now. so this is an idea of what or where we are proposing the labels go, and it is not quite to scale and so they will not be quite that big. but, the labels are, we call

them flags, or essentially, and they will not be attached to the pump and they will not be on the side of the pump we want them to be con spik yus and so it is basically at eye level. so this is the campaign is not about awareness, per se. although, more awareness is always a good thing, there is a lot of people that probably don't understand that burning gasoline, even is a source of co2 and that it is a problem initially. but, the main focus of this is where the labels is located and connecting personal consumption to the problem and so in our research it is not enough to raise awareness with the people about climate change and it is about connecting personal use of energy to the problem and that is where the cities can leverage this as a tool to get

the behavior change which is going to be the core of any policy. that, and in that comes down the road. for it, and mitigation strategies. and so it is about creating a more favorable social conditions around the changes that we need and so this is just a brief idea of what or where we are at and the scale of the problem of the greenhouse gases. but, there are there would be about a quarter of a ghg reductions and so it is significant just an idea of the transportation, and the number one source of greenhouse gases in the state of california. and this is the triangle chart on the bottom and that is a per capita and so we are targeting

a typical california largest contribution of greenhouse gases and so this is an appropriate social norms tool. and this might be helpful for, in terms of, you know, where the label should be placed. or we are arguing that this is an end use or this is a down stream problem not an upstream emission source. so ev uses maybe, electricity from coal, and maybe from nuclear or from solar and the consumer is not directly responsible for the emission source and in this case, the combuston of the fuel and the consumption is the largest problem and so the consumer running their engine is actually the source of the problem and so the consumer is actually responsible. whereas, there were responsible in the sense that there are alternatives that exist and they could, i mean eliminate

the problem. and so this is the proposed label, with san francisco language approved city attorney language. we think that it is a little wordy, and it could be truncated perhaps. and so just quickly, the labels are about dealing with a particular cognitive bias. and we are our short term thinkers, generally, we are, and we tend to discount future threats and we deal with only immediate needs and climate change is in virtually every poll, and taken as a concern for most and it is a low priority for most people. and the labels bring the urgency to the point of sale. and so this is one of the problems of transportation emissions and the consumer just does not feel part of the

problem because they are very much of a problem. because their contribution individually is small, but collectively they are part of this large problem and so the label locates the responsibility at that point of sale directly. so another problem with greenhouse gas emissions is that it does not bite us, it does not hurt and we don't get any immediate feedback and so the labels still feedback at the point of sale. and so the consumers is getting that oh, this is a problem message, and it is going to be durable, and be consistently there and every time that they are there, it is a reminder and it is going to be conscious and so the discounting is what i was saying earlier, it is a term psychological term, that we tend to discount the future threats. and it is a bias, and the

climate change is a perfect storm of cognitive biass for human beings, we need tools, and the cities need to utilize the tools to you know, deal with these cognitive biases. so, this is about, bringing the externalties to the use and it is similar to the feedback and it is bringing in at that point of sale for the consumer and so right now, consumers are not aware of the externalties of using the fossil fuels, and the label helps them appreciate that, that there are externalties. and bringing that externals in to that floor and it is we, and we argue is, in the essential part of changing people's attitude and beliefs so we can create the stronger price signals as you know, 2015, is

greenhouse gas, transportation, and cap and trade and rules applied to the transportation. and so that is that. so the idea, the end result of the labels is to bring about this, and this term is cognitive, and it is making consumer dissatisfied with the current technology of what we are using now and creating greater demand for policy change for new technology for land use changes and better transit option and so on. so, the idea is kind of set the stage for that type of thing. this is just another term it is about you know, changing the social context and the labels are out of the public relevant sxm they are changing the social context around the

fossil in the society. and this is a canadian study on smoking labels, and as you can see, virtually everybody notices them, and they have read the label and they understood what it said and they perhaps talked about it with somebody else and their meeting and that worked and that is social interaction is a key part of the campaign. and of actually talking about the climate change and talking about the issues like that. >> and so, but i, they, and it is the most important thing is how labels change policy and so

this is a flowchart that we did for, you know, the and how, and this is a smoking label flowchart and so the labels have an interactive impact and so they changed and they were implemented in 1965, the first labels were implemented in 65, and just the whole anti-tobacco campaign started in 64 with the surgeon general, and that came in about 20 years of good, solid evidence, that smoking caused all kinds of health problems and so, as you can see, and this interaction between policy, and attitudes and changing in behavior and all of them strengthen the behavior change as time went on and it is not just the label, and it is actually the effect on policy, and so the policy became more restrictive as the time went on and that helped to

reinforce the behavior change and so this is what we are arguing here with this type of campaign. and it is to put it out into the social realm, and in order to instigate these broader policy changes, because it will be just a, and it will be complimentary to the price signals and so and on and so forth. >> that is it. >> thank you very much. >> anyone... did you have someone else from 350 or that was it? >> that was it, yeah. >> okay. so, questions? >> commissioners? >> could i also say that a staff has bought some staff come up. >> that will be great. >> yeah. >> so bob, from our transportation program, and i asked him to think about the ordinance in the context of what we are doing and give you some thoughts on that. >> okay. >> we have had conversations

with supervisor avalos's office, on this as being developed, and generally, our feeling is anything that is effective in getting people to realize their impact on climate change is effective and anything that we can do to help with a wake up call to achieve personal behavior change is positive. and specifically, with respect to transportation, anything that we could do to make it so that people realize that they have choices other than automobiles, that are far less impactful on the climate change, is useful. and further, if they, do use automobiles that they have choices and the types of automobiles and the types of fuels that propel those automobiles. and so, one of the aspects of the ordinance as it was

introduced by supervisor avalos, does direct people or in viet people to go to our website at the department of environment and the age of the website to get the further information and so that is useful and it is not a direct statement of trying or urging people to move into other forms of transportation, or cleaner vehicles, but it certainly puts them to the information source where they can easily find that information. but, a couple of, just specific more detailed and in some ways, administrative points on the proposal, one of the aspects of the wording as it was introduced, is that it points out that almost 20 pounds of carbon dioxide are generated by burning fuel for a car. and that is certainly true, according to the epa records,

in data. and in the california resources board data for petroleum fuel and i think that it is important for us to realize that if we have a specific number in an ordinance like this, it probably should either identify it as pet trol um feel or if we drop a number it makes it broad enough there that it applies to any types of fuel, even some that are cleaner like compressed natural gas and electricity for the evs which have dramatically lower greenhouse gas emission component. the enforcement of the label

and authorizes enforcement, i would app that there are other departments and agencies within the government, and the city government, that currently do have enforcement activists with gas stations, and are, and they have processes of doing inspections and we might want to think about that as a place where actually placing the enforcement or the activity it is currently under 100 gas stations, and for the context for you somewhere between 70 and 90, and depending on which department records are correct. >> thank you for that,

commissioners, questions? >> while we are thinking, maybe we have been thinking about it and for the staff time, and for going through a process of developing the actual rules to the extent that they would be needed for enforcing this and for coming up with the design of the graphics, for the labels and for printing them. it is staff time and probably more than 60,000 and somewhere over 60,000, probably in the

first year, >> and for the burning of fossil fuels. >> nothing that specifically addresses it this way, we have a great deal of out reach activities related to climate change, generally. but there is nothing aimed at the vehicle users. i sympathize with the goals of

this proposed ordinance and we should do everything that we can to reduce unnecessary driving, and reduce, co2, emissions and i have three concerns, the first is that i think that the label has too many words, have you to figure out a way to community graphically and immediately and even if the people read it once, i don't believe that they are going to read it again. figure out how to use the

message graphically in an interesting way so that the people will actually look at the label. the second i am concerned about what i wonder what thought you all had given of how to measure the efficacy of this effort if you go ahead with it, and we have seen, you know, smoking, numbers decrease. and here, there is a var sophisticated operation, and distance that tracks who is smoking and what age they are, and that whole thing. give some thought about whether or not this is having a desired effect and where it is having the desired effect and who it is having the desired effect on.

and to establish some kind of reporting element so that everybody will know the effort is accomplishing or is not, the desired goal which is to reduce, i guess, is it to reduce the purchase of gasoline or to reduce driving? whatever it is, i think that it is important to figure out what it is and thing figure out how we are going to tell people and then just of all, and what bob said about the enforcement, i do think that if this is worth doing, it is worth funding, the agency that is going to be charged with developing the

program, and enforcing it rather than asking a department to do with their spare time and their, you know, their spare staff. if this is going to work it needs to are very carefully thought out and in consultation with graphic artist and clearly i have talked to some and there needs to be some kind of a reporting and recording component as i have said, thank you. >> did you want to ask if any of the speakers could answer those questions? >> yes, have you thought about the reporting component and have you thought about funding the agency, and what kind of thought have you given to really very few words on this sign, and just, you know,

griping picture. >> great, we have thought about simplifying the language and working through the ideas and one possible, shorter version that we have come up with is the u.s. environmental protection agency has determined that burning fuel contributes to the global warming and the combat warming to go to sfclimate.org. >> and it is shorter >> i have heard the feedback that it should include the carbon dioxide that contribute to global warming. and so, yeah, i think that it is something along those things and the longer message that we had in there, and definitely like the ideas of the graphics and we appreciate the graphs and that 350